Reading Time: 3 minutes [516 words]

LEO M. FRANE, 41

ber 18, refused a writ of error. November 23, Mr. Justice
Lamar, of the Supreme Court of the United States, refused
a writ of error. November 25, Mr. Justice Holmes, of the
United States Supreme Court, also refused a writ. Decem-
ber 7, the full bench of the United States Supreme Court re-
fused a writ of error. December 9, Frank was re-sentenced

that the verdict had been rendered and the jury discharged until after
the reception of the verdict and the discharge of the jury, and did
uot know of any waiver of his presence made by his counsel until
after sentence of death had been pronounced upon him, On the day
the verdict was rendered and before the judge who presided at the
trial of the cause began his charge to the jury, the judge in the jury
oom of the court house wherein the trial was proceeding, privately
conversed with two of the counsel of the defendant, and in the con-
versation referred to the probable danger of violence that the defend-
ant would be in if he were present when the verdict was rendered, if
the verdict shonld be one of acquittal; and after the judge had thus
expressed himself he requested the counsel thus spoken fo, to agree
that the defendant need not be present at the time the verdict waa
rendered, and the jury was polled. In these cireumstances the coun-
sel did agree with the judge that the defendant should not be present
at the rendition of the verdict. In the same conversation the judge
expressed the opinion also to the counsel that even counsel of the
defendant might be in danger if they should be present at the recep-
tion of the verdict, In these cireumstances defendant's counsel,
Rosser and Arnold, did agree with the judge that defendant should
not be present at the rendition of the verdict. The defendant was
not present at the conversation and knew nothing about any agree-
ment made gs above stated until after the verdict was received, and
the uy was discharged and until after sentence of death was pro-
Ronnced upon him. Pursuant to the conversation, neither of defend-
ant’s counsel were present when the verdict was received, and the
jury discharged. Defendant saya that he did not give counsel nor
anyone else any authority to waive or renounce the right of the
defendant to be present at the reception of the verdiet or to agree
that the defendant should not be present thereat; that the relation of
elient and attorney did not give them sueh authority, though counsel
acted in the most perfect good faith and in the interest of the safety
of the defendant, Defendant did not agree that his counsel or either
of them might be absent when the verdict was rendered,

“Defendant says upon and because of the grounds above stated:
The verdict was of no legal effect, and was void and in violation
of article 1, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution of the State of Geor-
gia, which provides that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property except by due process of law, That the reeepton of the
verdict in the involuntary absence of the defendant, was in violation
of and contrary to the provisions of Article 6, Sec. 18, par. 1, of the

Related Posts